h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The original thread I started has been yikesed, removing the title and effectively killing it.

I'm therefore restarting the thread with this posting to preserve the title, and am now going to attempt to guess which bit of the original post was deemed unacceptable.

I'm hearing a lot in the news about the possibility that, in addition to a grovelling apology and a lot of general self-flagellation, the 200th anniversary of the end of the slave trade should be marked by some financial recompense to the "victims". (Quotes used to indicate that it is far from clear, to me at least, who the living victims are of a practice that stopped two hundred years ago.)

Indeed, last night's "Moral Maze" on Radio 4 discussed the issue. Unfortunately, the first 'witness' was a black woman so incredibly [...] inarticulate that I had to switch the radio off. "Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips, Ian Hargreaves and Clifford Longley cross-examine the experts." said the blurb. This particular "expert" sounded about seventeen years old, judging by her ignorance of the history of slavery, her startlingly naive views and her demonstrated inability
to speak five words in a row without saying "y'know". It really was car-crash radio and I encourage anyone [...] to get on the BBC's Listen Again feature and hear her taken to pieces by the panel.

Moving on from that digression - I have no idea whether my
great-great-great-great grandfather was an abolitionist, a slave owner, a slave trader or indeed a slave. Given that I have sixteen such ancestors, it's possible that all four feature in my family tree.

My questions are:

1. Should we apologise?
2. To whom?
3. For what?
4. What else that our centuries-dead ancestors have done should we apologise
for?

For myself, I'm more than happy to apologise to anyone with a tan for the slave trade. I'm really, truly, deeply sorry it happened. I had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it, as any [person] would know, what with it being over for 200 years and everything. But I'm still very, very, very sorry. No problem.

BUT...

*FINANCIAL* recompense?

I ask again:

1. Should "we"? (By "we", here, I mean UK taxpayers - many of whom of course are
black, or Asian, or Oriental...)
2. To whom?
3. How much?
4. Who else do we "owe" money to?

I think the whole idea of financial recompense is a joke. The suggestion alone seems likely to have a number of predictable results:

1. A lot of self-righteous commentators in the media supporting it.
2. A lot of self-flagellatory lefties in the media supporting it.
3. A lot of common-sensical people in the media opposing it as ridiculous.
4. More support for the BNP.

Anyone else?

SoRB

My post from the other thread:

1. Should we apologise?

Yes.


2. To whom?

I don't know enough about the situation in your country. Assuming we are limiting this thread to the UK, I'd suggest asking the peoples who have been affected.

3. For what?

Ditto.


4. What else that our centuries-dead ancestors have done should we apologise for?

You really want a list? It's quite long.

Seriously though, the point of apologies like this (and recompense) is to attend to the people that are alive today, and to redress some of the injustice *they face STILL.



RECOMPENSE:

1. Should "we"? (By "we", here, I mean UK taxpayers - many of whom of course are black, or Asian, or Oriental...)
2. To whom?
3. How much?
4. Who else do we "owe" money to?

Did you know that models exists for this elsewhere in the world?

In NZ, 'we' is the crown, so the financial settlements to Maori have come from NZ's wealth that is held by the government. Even though we're quite a small country, it's not been that hard for us to afford this (although it has to be said that for the most part Maori have been recompensed a pittance compared to what they lost originally).


I don't know to whom, again I don't know the UK history well enough. I think it needs to be collective, rather than to individuals. But this is tricky. In NZ Maori were forced to take on Western legal collective identities in order for the government to pay treaty settlement claims. But this has been problematic because those structures don't work particularly well at ensuring the good of the collective.

I think really you need to listen to the peoples who have been most affected. This doesn't mean that you just hand over wads of cash - you can still engage critical thinking to see if what they say makes sense or is reasonable. One has to be careful of cultural bias on both sides, but in general I think that the people with the power need to work harder at putting their bias aside for a bit, so some understanding can come.

And of course, if you are already opposed on principle (although I'm not sure what the principle is exactly) it's hard to see how you will be open to understanding.

The big thing I get about these issues, is that it's not about the past. It's about how people living now have been disenfranchised by past abuses, and that other people are living a better life now because they have priviledge directly resulting from the abuse of others.

So, it's got nothing to do with the fact that you didn't commit any abuses, it's to do with the priviledge that you have now compared to the descendants of slaves.

I also think that if we are talking about slavery of African peoples, then it has to be acknowledged that the UK's abuse of Africa, and priviledge gained from that, has been going on long after slavery ended.

Reposting;

There is enough slavery going on within the developing world and in the shadows of the developed world, by the descendants of those formerly enslaved or oppressed, to make any apology meaningless.

>>How so? (Kea)

Well SoRB said it with "To Whom?"

If we were to make profuse apologies and compensation to the Notion Of Zimbabwe (sic) for instance, we would be sponsoring slavery, rape camps and state-sponsored killing by so doing. It's not a lot nicer in West Africa, I'm led to believe.

How many of us are descended from slaves, do you think? I think it could be a surprisingly high figure.

Chris, are you meaning apologies to other nations?

>>
How many of us are descended from slaves, do you think? I think it could be a surprisingly high figure.
<<

Not sure what the point was Icy, but it's not about being a descendant of a slave in general. It's about being a descendant of a slave in a culture that is still benefitting from the enslavement.

These 'kinds' of appologies which come up time to time, when some political leader of whatever country it is appologises for whatever it is that happened, useually but not always decades apon decades, or as in this case hundreds of years ago, always seems to be an entirely pointless empty jesture to me. The people who it affected are useually long long dead, and only very very distant relitives left, and of course those doing the appologizing don't have anything themselves useually to appologise for as they weren't responsible for whatever it is they're appologising for A lot of the time anyhow its just two-faced political upmanship, I can't see the point in us appologising for say attrositys we comitted against whatever race/peoples it is that we're apologizing to today, when we're more than happy to toddle off at the next merest suggestion that the unbelievers on the other side are not behaving as we think htey oughta and go masacure a few thousand more bodies.

1. Should "we"? (By "we", here, I mean UK taxpayers - many of whom of course are
black, or Asian, or Oriental...)

Yes we all live in a country where we use the infrastructure that was partially financed by what was a morally abhorent and not a word I use lightly, evil trade.

2. To whom?

To countries who were destabilised and people whose life chances have been damaged by the slave trade. So if people can show a slave ancestry they could compete for a certain amount of higer education scholarships. this scheme should last as long as....lets say the entire number of years that any country actively promoted the slave trade to the time it made it illegal.


3. How much?

Well where nations are concerned why not actualy give the amounts promised at the Gleneagles summit. Or just as Governments backed slavery they could use their power to cancel the debts of affected nations in West Africa held by banks operatiing in the UK


4. Who else do we "owe" money to?

Perhaps a lot of people but saying other claims might be spurrious or diificult to deal with does not affect this one or do you think differently.

one love

2legs, I'm curious who's been making the pointless apologies - who did you have in mind?

In NZ, apologies have been important to the people who received them. Isn't that the crucial thing?

I think it's significant that Howard in Australia refuses to apologise to Aboriginal peoples, and Aboriginal peoples are in a far worse situation than Maori in NZ. There are complex reasons for that, but I do think that an official apology does help race relations. Of course an apology from Howard would be almost meaningless because he's a bigot who wouldn't really believe it, but some, at least, of the apologies in NZ have been genuine, and moving.

This is about Slavery. whilst I am sympathetic to the plight of the Native indiginous people of Australia & New Zealand, at the hands of the immigrants, were they ever enslaved?

On the original thread, kea wrote:

"1. Should we apologise?

Yes."

OK...

"2. To whom?

I don't know enough about the situation in your country. Assuming we are limiting this thread to the UK, I'd suggest asking the peoples who have been affected."

But who are they? This is rather my point. Who, today, can sensibly be said to have been affected?

Some examples:
1. It is well known as a result of DNA studies that a significant number of superficially white people are descended, at least in part and often unknowingly, from black people brought here as slaves. Do you apologise to them? If not - why not? They're descended from slaves...

2. Do you apologise to, say, a forty year old doctor, or a barrister, because she happens to be black? What are you apologising FOR, exactly, and how do you phrase the apology? "Look, I know you've been educated at taxpayers' expense through university and now are probably in the top 1% of earners... but we're really sorry that your life chances were so restricted. Um..."

3. One of my very best friends is mixed race. Do you apologise to her? And if so, why? Her father came here from Somalia in the nineteen fifties. He (as far I know) never had any connection with slavery. She, meanwhile, has the aforementioned good education and successful career. She might (I haven't asked) find an apology patronising and demeaning.

4. Do you apologise to an unemployed black man in his twenties with no qualifications? Surely HE has a poor life, and poor life chances. But surely also he should take some responsibility for himself. Trying to pin the blame for his hard luck on something that happened two centuries ago is disingenuous at least - isn't it?

"3. For what?

Ditto."

See above. What are we apologising for? Are we apologising for what happened THEN? Cool. I can do that. Are we apologising for what's happening now? See above point about the fact that some of the "victims" you'd be apologising to are very much better off even than me.

"4. What else that our centuries-dead ancestors have done should we apologise for?

You really want a list? It's quite long. "

Well, isn't that rather the point. Once you get started, you'd never stop. Which, I think, really is an argument for not starting. For just letting it go and saying, you know what? That's HISTORY. Get over it.

As I write, I think "Yeah, SoRB, but you wouldn't say that about the Holocaust." Which is true, partly because there are still people knocking about who survived it, or whose parents and siblings died as a result. But I think I would say that about the Holocaust if it had happened in 1750, and I think I'd be justified. There is nobody alive today who even had grandparents who were traded as slaves. Time, surely, to just let it go.

"Seriously though, the point of apologies like this (and recompense) is to attend to the people that are alive today, and to redress some of the injustice *they face STILL."

See above point about *which* people.

"In NZ, 'we' is the crown, so the financial settlements to Maori have come from NZ's wealth that is held by the government."

The UK population is, I think, a good deal larger and more diverse than that in NZ, and we're not talking here about an easily identifiable *indiginous* population. We're talking about taxing an ethnically diverse population (e.g. should a Pakistani shopkeeper or doctor, or a Chinese restauranteur or lawyer be taxed extra to pay for European slavery?) to pay... who? Black people? Mixed race people? People with identifiable African DNA? Poor ones only? Ones who can prove discrimnation only? Who?

"I think really you need to listen to the peoples who have been most affected."

See above - there simply isn't an easily identifiable group.

"It's about how people living now have been disenfranchised by past abuses, and that other people are living a better life now because they have priviledge directly resulting from the abuse of others."

But the existence in today's Britain of black people in the very top echelons of the police force, the legal and medical professions, the judiciary and the clergy, rather suggests that any disenfranchisement no longer exists. Sure, that presence is relatively recent - but it's there.

"So, it's got nothing to do with the fact that you didn't commit any abuses, it's to do with the priviledge that you have now compared to the descendants of slaves."

As I say, there are descendants of slaves in the Houses of Parliament, the top law courts etc. Next to them, I (with my good job, new car and two houses) seem positively poverty struck. Additionally please don't suggest I am in any way privileged, because I got what I got from a poor, single parent working class background.

"I also think that if we are talking about slavery of African peoples, then it has to be acknowledged that the UK's abuse of Africa, and priviledge gained from that, has been going on long after slavery ended."

"Abuse"? Not sure what you're referring to. Colonial domination, well, yeah. But there are a few wonderful examples right now of how well African countries govern themselves, post-colonialism. Zimbabwe. South Africa. Sierra Leone. Sudan. Rwanda. I'm not suggesting that colonial rule was preferable. I'm not even sure what I'm suggesting. Perhaps that, before we start beating ourselves up about stuff our long-dead ancestors did, we put the world of today right, based on what's happening today.

SoRB

The point I am making is that there are precedents for governments to make contemporary apologies and paying compensation to peoples that have been abused by them in the past.

Obviously the situation with slavery is different, there are different issues involved, but there are similarities as well. Some people seem to think that the idea of righting historical injustice itself is outrageous, and I'm demonstrating that in fact it works very well in some places.

>>>people whose life chances have been damaged by the slave trade

I'm curious to see how you'd define that... I honestly can't think of a single method of attempting to prove, in a court of law, that someone alive today, living in the UK, had been adversely effected by the slave trade...

a) If it's because of race, then the race relations act etc. covers the problem
b) You'd need a crystal ball to decide whether someone was worse off because their great-great-grandfather was a slave... Taking it to ridiculous extremes, as the average life expectancy in the UK is greater and the GNP per head is higher than in most African countries, not only are offspring of slaves imported from those countries probably living longer as a result of slavery, they are richer than they might have been and there chances of being eaten by a lion are much reduced.

I am in no way attempting to justify slavery or to condone it, but to say that individuals in the UK, today, could specifically blame their current situation on events that took place 200+ years ago is like me suing the French government because I got sunburnt on holiday in England last year...

The area I was in was an Oak forest 300 years ago, the forest was felled to make ships to fight the Napoleonic wars, therefore, it's the French government's fault that the trees are no longer there and I got sunburnt.

>>
But who are they? This is rather my point. Who, today, can sensibly be said to have been affected? <<

Have you tried asking some black people? How many? Were they politicised?

If you were asking those questions in NZ, I could tell you how to find out. Interesting that you don't know where to go for the answers.


In NZ, part of the reason there was a legal requirement for iwi (tribes) to formalise was so that the govt would know who to pay. Here, iwi affiliation is done by genealogy generally. It has nothing to do with what the USians call blood quantum (that's a white culture concept).

But really, again, I say you have to ask the people involved, it's not that hard to do. Go look on the internet for politically activist blacks in the UK, and then go talk to them.


>>
4. Do you apologise to an unemployed black man in his twenties with no qualifications? Surely HE has a poor life, and poor life chances. But surely also he should take some responsibility for himself. Trying to pin the blame for his hard luck on something that happened two centuries ago is disingenuous at least - isn't it?
<<

No, what is disingenuous is you making out that this about the past, when it's not. Obviously the whole point is that Africans were enslaved and used to build the wealth that you now benefit from. And the descendants of those slaves are worse off NOW than you BECAUSE of that, because they've grown up, generationally, in a culture that has institutional racism stemming in part from the slavery. This ain't rocket engineering. If you keep making out that it's about the past then you're either being thick or you're deliberately avoiding the truth to bolster your own stance.

An example from NZ - Maori had land stolen. It was given to European settlers. Europeans descendants now have far more wealth than Maori, because it's FAR easier to build wealth on wealth than it is to build from poverty. If you didn't have land in a rural based economy, then it was hard to make money. Add to that all the racist legislation that support whites and oppressed Maori then it's really easy to see why COLLECTIVELY they are worse off than they would have been if they had had equal rights.

I don't know how to give the example in your country, but it's shame that you can't. Do you know the history? Can you trace the patterns of poverty down the generations from slavery?


>>
As I write, I think "Yeah, SoRB, but you wouldn't say that about the Holocaust." Which is true, partly because there are still people knocking about who survived it, or whose parents and siblings died as a result. But I think I would say that about the Holocaust if it had happened in 1750, and I think I'd be justified. There is nobody alive today who even had grandparents who were traded as slaves. Time, surely, to just let it go.
<<

Actually in the US at least, I think there are children of slaves still alive.

But anyway, again in NZ, Maori started fighting against land theft and injust legislation as it was implemented. They've been fighting for 150 odd years. It's taken that long to get the injustices even on the table in any meaningful way. If you just keep oppressing people long enough they might just give up and go away.


>>
The UK population is, I think, a good deal larger and more diverse than that in NZ, and we're not talking here about an easily identifiable *indiginous* population. We're talking about taxing an ethnically diverse population (e.g. should a Pakistani shopkeeper or doctor, or a Chinese restauranteur or lawyer be taxed extra to pay for European slavery?) to pay... who? Black people? Mixed race people? People with identifiable African DNA? Poor ones only? Ones who can prove discrimnation only? Who?
<<

NZ is ethically diverse as well. We have Chinese NZers here that have been here as long as Europeans. The point is that here the crown pays. You make it sound like it's going to come out of people's pockets, it's not. The state is their for the benefit of the collective, and it's pretty obvious that if you redress injustive where you can, then that will be good for the whole country.

But really, just go and ask the people involved.


>>
But the existence in today's Britain of black people in the very top echelons of the police force, the legal and medical professions, the judiciary and the clergy, rather suggests that any disenfranchisement no longer exists. Sure, that presence is relatively recent - but it's there.
<<

Oh ffs. Go read some real research on racism and poverty. We have a woman Prime Minister, you really think there's no such thing as sexism?


>>
As I say, there are descendants of slaves in the Houses of Parliament, the top law courts etc. Next to them, I (with my good job, new car and two houses) seem positively poverty struck. Additionally please don't suggest I am in any way privileged, because I got what I got from a poor, single parent working class background.
<<

I think one of the necessary debates missing from h2 is class. But working class white people still have race priviledge. Interestingly working class white men seem to have the most trouble acknowleding where they have priviledge.

>>> The point is that here the crown pays. You make it sound like it's going to come out of people's pockets, it's not.

And where does this mythical being known as "the crown" get its money from? (Although I suppose it would account for quite a few pub names).

'The Crown' is the state, and the state gets its money from taxation, and who pays taxes?

All slavery is of course abhorant.
I can't re-type all in other thread, so I will just say who is getting the compensation, is it the black africans who were used as slaves by other black africans BEFORE european slave trade started, is it the black africans who were sold to european slave traders by other black africans, is it the children who were sold to slave traders by their african mothers?
.
And what about the nearly one and a half million europeans who were taken by North African slave traders just before european slave trade started? Some of those slaves were taken from vilages on Devon/Cornwall coast, who gets the money there, and who in Africa will be paying the UK victims money?
Slavery is horrible but it isn't as clear cut as I once thought, nor perhaps as many still think.

The Crown's wealth doesn't come only from taxes though, does it?

It's been built up for 150 years here, and includes investments and assets. Those things didn't just come from the taxes of individuals. That wealth also came from confiscated land. So not only did the crown gain, Maori were severely disadvantaged.

Likewise in the UK, your country's wealth isn't just from the tax of individuals currently alive, it's based on many things including the wealth generated by the slave trade. Are there not large businesses in the UK who made their fortunes that way? And at the same time, enslaved peoples lost out because they were denied the same rights as the white people benefiting from the slavery?

That degree of loss can't be recovered from in a single generation after slavery ended. It takes a long time to work one's way out of poverty especially where the tools of impoverishment still exist eg institutional racism.

I haven't read this thread, I glanced at the yikesed one. The issue means something to me.

By celebrating slavery we are adding chips to the shoulders of already chip laden individuals. Slavery was a bad thing. Slavery is now the bain of eastern europeans. Slavery is still around and a 'slavery day' is patronising nonsense.

>>>Those things didn't just come from the taxes of individuals.

No, I'd agree, the state doesn't get _all_ its income from private individuals directly, however, it all goes into the same pot - and if you start draining that pot - you've got to refill it from somewhere - and the only source of income any country can increase (short of annexing a few foreign countries) is by increasing taxes paid by its people (either directly or indirectly - take your pick, it all comes down to the same thing).


>>>Are there not large businesses in the UK who made their fortunes that way? And at the same time, enslaved peoples lost out because they were denied the same rights as the white people benefiting from the slavery?

No doubt you're right, but from a legal and even logical point of view, how can you justify penalising people today for the actions of their forefathers (should we live in a Stalinist-state where the crimes of one person lead to the whole family being punished?). It's all very well saying that things weren't right 200 years ago, but to set in concrete the fact that actions undertaken 200 years ago are directly and solely influential on a single, specific situation right here and now is logically impossible.

>>>That degree of loss can't be recovered from in a single generation after slavery ended.

But we're talking a lot longer ago than one generation, you're talking about 10 generations ago that slavery was abolished in the UK... 1024 great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents for each and every one of us...


>>>It takes a long time to work one's way out of poverty especially where the tools of impoverishment still exist eg institutional racism.

And the laws to counter institutional racism exist today. I'm not saying they are being applied in all cases, but they do exist...

In fact, I vehemently oppose any possibility of the actions of a state 200+ years ago being used as a reason for institutional racism today - as, I think, should anyone campaigning for racial equality...

Think about it, if someone suffers from racial discrimination today, there are laws to protect them (whether the work or not is for another debate) and the person or organisation directly responsible for that descrimination is held responsible.

Wouldn't those organisations or individuals accused of racism love to have the perfect defence... "I'm not racist, my attitudes and actions have been adversely affected by the actions of my government 200 years ago... If my government hadn't condoned slavery then I wouldn't be stood here in this dock facing these charges - so your honour, please let me go so I can talk to my lawyer about suing the government for the psychological stress this criminal case has caused and the mental attitudes passed on through the generations of my family...

Do you really want to de-responsibilise (does that word exist?) anyone from racial acts because of the actions of their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather?